Michael Kinsley (MK): Good evening. Is William F. Buckley, Jr.
descended from monkeys? That's one question we face in tonight's special
Firing Line debate. We come to you tonight from Seton Hall University in
South Orange, New Jersey. At Seton Hall, as at all institutions of
higher learning, the issue of Mr. Buckley's parentage has been the
subject of lively speculation for decades now. [audience laughs] But our
official debate topic actually raises that issue only indirectly. The official
wording is: "Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge
Creation."

Now those last two words "acknowledge creation" require
some parsing. The word "creation" is shorthand for the
proposition that humankind was created by God in His own image as it
says in the Bible. Some creationists believe the theory of evolution is
simply wrong. While others believe that the theories of evolution and
creation are compatible. The word "acknowledge" here can mean
a couple of things as well. It could mean that evolutionists should
accept the truth of creation theory. Or it just may mean that the theory
of creationism is entitled to be treated as an open question, especially
in the teaching of biology in high school. We shall see which of these
interpretations tonight's debaters have in mind.

The theory of evolution was first enunciated of course by Charles
Darwin almost a century and a half ago in his book The Origin of the
Species. In recent years, Darwin's proposition has been subject to
two opposite trends. On the one hand, there has been explosive growth in a
field called evolutionary psychology, which applies the theory of
evolution not just to physical attributes, but to a wide assortment of
human behavior. Your decision to come to this debate tonight in this
auditorium was dictated by pressures on our shared human ancestors
generations ago. That's only a slight exaggeration of what the
evolutionary psychologists believe. On the other hand, religious groups
have had growing success in requiring creationism to be taught alongside
evolutionary theory in the nation's schools. Just last month, the
National Association of Biology Teachers dropped two key words from its
official statement on teaching evolution. The statement used to read:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process."
Those words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" are now
gone.

Is the teaching of evolution another example of political correctness
where dissident views are being censored? Or are the creationists trying
to pass off theology as science? That's more or less the debate. Let's
welcome tonight's debaters.

[audience applause while the debaters walk in and sit down on
opposite sides of a table]

MK: Captain of the affirmative team is William F. Buckley, Jr.
Founder and maximum leader of both Firing Line and the National
Review. Mr. Buckley's latest book is titled Nearer, My God: An
Autobiography of Faith. His conviction that he is the creation of
God is complicated only by his suspicion that he is God.
[audience laughs] Phillip Johnson is a professor of law at the
University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of a book
entitled Darwin on Trial, published several years ago, and
another book published just this year called Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds. Michael Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh
University. He is the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution, which was chosen as the 1997 book of the
year by the magazine Christianity Today. David Berlinski
has had an eclectic career as a college professor, management
consultant, writer of fiction and non-fiction. His fields of expertise
according to his biography include systems analysis, differential
topology, whatever that is [laughs], biology, and the philosophy of
mathematics. His most recent book is called A Tour of the Calculus.
More to the point though, he is also the author of an article published
last year in Commentary entitled "The Deniable Darwin."

Captain of the opposition team is an old Firing Line favorite,
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State. Mr. Lynn is both a lawyer and a minister in the United
Church of Christ. I think we can all agree that when evolution starts
producing ministers who are also lawyers it has gone too far and must be
stopped. [audience laughs] Eugenie Scott is executive director of the
National Center for Science Education, which describes itself as a
pro-evolution, non-profit, science education organization. She holds a
Ph.D. in physical anthropology and according to her bio has appeared on
Geraldo and the Pat Buchanan Show, which ought to shake anyone's belief
in evolution I would think. Michael Ruse is a philosopher of biology,
and a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada. He is the author
of many books, some of them with titles like Darwinism Defended, Taking
Darwin Seriously, and forthcoming, Can a Darwinian be a
Christian? Evolutionary Theory and Religious Belief. Kenneth Miller
is professor of biology at Brown University. He is the author of many
books and articles, including a recent review of Darwin's Black Box
by Mr. Behe, which did not impress him.

I'm Mike Kinsley, editor of Slate the online magazine. I'm
tonight's moderator, and I'll do my best, despite losing my voice to a
cold, to keep this debate from evolving out of control. And [coughs], to
begin, I call on Mr. Buckley to propose tonight's motion. Mr. Buckley?

Opening Statement by Affirmative

William Buckley (WB): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I
retreat from any formulation of tonight's exchange to suggest that
everyone on the other side should embrace creation. Not everyone on the
affirmative side embraces creation. What we contend is that everyone
should acknowledge creation as an alternative explanation for cosmic and
biological happenings now thought by so many as naturalist in providence
and momentum. Why? Because my colleagues and I judge that the evidence
for the naturalist theory of evolution is not merely insubstantial, it
is fanciful. If it is so that life as we know it is the ongoing display
of punctuated equilibriums, then we pause and ask, what is the theory of
natural selection, how it explains macroevolutionary developments? If
there is no theory on the grounds that you don't need a theory to
account for mere happenstance, then we give it as our judgment that such
data as we have can't come up with a plausible theory under the aegis of
natural -- of natural materialism, because what pops up here is chaotic
there, contradictory. If chance is the progenitor of the human eye, then
chance is so arresting in its stochastic formulations as to warrant
something other than scientific complacency, something more like true
reverence. But reverence is a swear word in button-down scientific
circles, because it sounds too extra-natural. We don't revere the Aurora
Borealis, we simply take pleasure in it, as we do in the Goldberg
Variations, happy that the cosmos happened to give us that stupendous
constellation, happy that the genetic pool gave it -- gave us the art of
Johann Sebastian Bach.

I speak only for myself, though some of my confederates may wish to
associate themselves with me on this matter, when I say that I am much
taken by what goes by the name of the Anthropic view. What it says is
that there are a handful of elements that make up the cosmos, and that
the balance in which they co-exist has no explanation more plausible
than that there's only -- than that's the only way to make possible a
human life, whence Anthropic design for man. The nuclear weak force
formed is 10 to the 20th the strength of gravity. If it had been just a
little bit weaker, the earth would have been without water. Uniquely
among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than in its liquid
form. Ice therefore floats. If it weren't so, the ocean would freeze
from the bottom up, and the earth would be covered with solid ice. Such
data aren't the kind of things that make up my personal library, but how
much science do we need to master to qualify as reasonably to affirm
that there has to be a reason for you and me and the world we live in? A
reason other than acts of raw nature driven by, driven by what?

I'm reminded of the reply by an elderly scientist a hundred years
ago, when confronted by an exuberant young skeptic. He said to his
student, "I gotta tell you, I find it more reasonable to believe in
God, than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular
structure of a mutton chop." So I beg your attention to our
resolution tonight, which is that the dogma of evolution should give way
to a broader intelligence, which makes way for a First Mover. Thank you.

Barry Lynn (BL): Thank you. Thank you, very much. The French
philosopher Renee Descartes wrote, "I think, therefore I am."
Although I am neither French nor a philosopher, I say I have somehow
ended up once again on the set of Firing Line, therefore I must have
been created somehow. In fact, none of us on this team have any
doubt that we have all been created somehow. Where we disagree
with Mr. Buckley and his colleagues is on the relationship between
evolution and our current situation. On this team we differ on our
answers to some of these great and literally cosmic questions: Is there
a God? Is there purpose in the universe? But we all agree that evolution
is indeed the only logically coherent and useful explanation for the
development of life. Evolution is an explanation of a natural process,
it is not an ideology, and nor, Mr. Buckley, is it at all fanciful. Like
the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism, evolutionary
theory continues to be refined, year by year and month by month. Yet in
each case, there has been no fundamental challenge that has been made to
any of these scientific doctrines since they were developed.

Tonight you will hear claims asserting fundamental scientific flaws
in the notion of evolution. We'll examine such assertions and try to
show how those are themselves illogical. More importantly though we'll
demonstrate that the arguments made by the other side are based on
fundamentalist religious beliefs or discredited philosophical
constructs, or what we sometimes refer to as just plain nonsense.

We can't afford, ladies and gentlemen, for this to become too
abstract a debate. Because creation science advocates from California to
Alabama have already duped school boards and thus required
schoolchildren to believe that evolution can somehow be debunked by
alternative theories. In so doing, schools are being asked to elevate
pseudo-science to the level of genuine science. What's next? Will we
find the casting of astrological charts replacing telescope observations
in high schools? I hope not, but I think that's the direction we might
end up going. And indeed if our children are not as prepared as those in
Japan and Europe to understand what science is, to recognize the
difference between a scientific question and a religious question, then
they frankly will not be able to compete in the extraordinarily
well-developing world of the future.

Now there is that ever-so-slim possibility that in the next two hours
we may not put to rest conclusively the debate over evolution and
creation. [laughs] But I hope our team does make you consider the
implications of this debate. If you're persuaded at a minimum that
speculation is much less useful than rigorous scientific analysis, and
also that you can even choose to be faithful to theism, to a belief in
God, and still accept the biological theory of evolution for what it is.
Finally, we're going to insist that Mr. Buckley's team that doesn't
believe that evolution is viable, explain then what in the world did
happen to bring us to Seton Hall University tonight? As Martin Gardner
once put it: "If you claim the world is not round, you are obliged
to tell us what shape you think it really is." Thank you.

Phillip Johnson (PJ): The issue before the house is
essentially simple. Evolutionary science takes its starting point from a
philosophical position known as naturalism or materialism. Evolutionary
scientists assume that nature is all there is, and that nature is
composed of material entities, the particles that physicists study. It
follows logically, that science must and can explain the origin of
complex living organisms solely by natural causes, meaning unintelligent
causes. God may not create directly, nor may God direct evolution,
because God is an intelligent Being, and evolution is by definition a
mindless process.

And yet, even according to the leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins,
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Is it possible
that they appear that way because they actually were designed and there
really is a Designer? Evolutionary biologists emphatically answer No,
not because of the evidence, but because their philosophy effectively
excludes that Designer from reality. They insist, against the evidence,
that unguided chemical processes can produce living organisms from
non-living chemicals, and that a combination of random mutations and
natural selection can, given enough time, produce complex plants and
animals from single-celled ancestors through a mindless process.

These far-reaching claims loaded with religious implications are not
supported by the scientific evidence. My colleagues and I want to
separate the real science from the materialist philosophy that provides
the only real support for this Darwinist theory.

MK: Thank you Professor Johnson. An opening statement from Ms.
Scott.

Eugenie Scott (ES): Now hearing Phil define evolution is a
little bit like having Madalyn Murray O'Hair define Christianity. Let me
define evolution the way scientists define evolution, the way we're
going to use it on our side of the table. Evolution is used two ways:
one, is a bigger idea, that the present is different from the past, that
the universe has had a history, that stars, galaxies, the planet earth,
plants and animals on it have changed through time. Biological evolution
is a subset of the idea of change through time, saying that living
things, plants and animals, have shared common ancestors, and have
descended with modification from those ancestors.

Now notice in this definition, I talked about what happened. I didn't
talk about "who done it," and I didn't talk about
"how." Because those are separate issues. Scientists are very
much united on what happened. Evolution happened -- to modify a bumper
sticker. But how it happened is something that we argue about a
lot in science -- how important is natural selection, how important are
other mechanisms. "Who done it" is something that as
scientists we can't comment on as scientists. We can put on our
philosopher's hat and comment as individuals, but as scientists we can't
deal with ultimate cause. So I think we have to be very clear about what
we mean by evolution, what they mean by evolution is some
sort of a metaphysical system that we do not recognize.

MK: Thank you Ms. Scott. You have five minutes to question Ms.
Scott, Professor.

PJ: Yes, do you say that Darwinian evolution does not have a
profound religious implication of discouraging belief that there is an
intelligent Creator who brought about our existence for a purpose?

ES: I think that to some people, yes. Natural selection --
"Darwinism" is evolution through natural selection -- does
cause problems. If your theology requires you to interpret the Bible
literally, six 24-hour days, 10000 years ago, and so forth, you're going
to have a problem --

PJ: But only for biblical literalists. Not for the proposition
that I asked about, which is that a Creator brought about our existence
for a purpose.

ES: I don't think so, in the broader sense. Because, for
example, there was a survey done not too long ago, of American men and
women of science. And one of the questions that they asked was something
on the order of -- Evolution occurred -- human beings were -- human
beings evolved, but God directed the process. 40% of scientists agreed
with that, which is the same as the general public. So clearly the idea
of evolution can't be totally --

PJ: Well -- we don't know whether they were evolutionary
biologists, do we? They weren't -- we aren't talking about Richard
Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, in that poll, are we?

ES: There are evolutionary biologists who have made something
of a philosophical statement out of evolution. You and I both agree with
that. But I think you have to be careful about not tarring all
evolutionary biologists with that brush.

PJ: Let's get to that statement. Are you familiar with this
kind of a symbol, that --

ES: I am indeed.

PJ: -- the fish here that says "Jesus" in it. You
see it on cars. And then you're familiar with this one too?

ES: I am indeed.

PJ: And is it your view that the relationship -- the
resemblance between these two is not coincidental? [audience laughs]

ES: Oh, not at all. Not at all.

PJ: Uh, this is what we call "evidence of intelligent
design." [laughs]

ES: You might consider it an evolution of the fish. But --

PJ: Yes, and -- now so in fact this is put out to mock
the Christian fish symbol, isn't it? With Darwin there right in the
place of Jesus.

ES: I suspect some people consider it a form of mockery. I
have also, driving around Berkeley, I don't know how unusual Berkeley is
from other cities in the country but -- I have seen the Darwin fish and
the Christian fish facing each other on bumpers. So obviously not
everybody -- that's a rather ecumenical car there I think. [laughs]

PJ: Well, I notice here I have a letter from the National
Center for Science Education, signed by you, and I notice Professor Ruse
and Professor Miller are on the letterhead. And it says -- your letter
says, "quite a few NCSE members sport the Darwin fish on their
cars, and for a $50 donation I'd be delighted to send you something new,
a sturdy Darwin fish refrigerator magnet, also good for keeping things
in your filing cabinet." So you rather thought that would have
quite an appeal to the members of your organization, didn't you?

ES: I sort of wish I was Gerry Brown and I could hold up an
800 number here so you could all call and donate to the National Center
for Science Education but -- Yeah, a lot of our members are people who
are very concerned about the teaching of evolution in the public
schools, so therefore they find the Darwin fish attractive. You'll
notice as a member of NCSE and somebody who receives our newsletter, we
don't advertise it in the newsletter. We don't make a big point of sort
of trying to --

PJ: That's just for the members.

ES: Because some people are offended by it. We're not in the
business of offending Christians.

PJ: Now, you are aware, and I think you're quite willing to
agree with me on this, that whatever may be the ultimate truth of this,
many people do use Darwinian evolution as an argument for atheism.

ES: Correct.

PJ: Uh, and in fact the impression is widely around that this
is done with the approval of -- tacit approval at least of the
scientific establishment. Richard Dawkins goes around the world arguing
this, without being criticized by authoritative sources. And Carl Sagan
who did that famous Cosmos series, saying "the cosmos is all there
is, or ever was, or ever will be" -- was honored with a public
welfare medal by the National Academy of Sciences. So there is some
reason for people to think this. And I think your participation in
changing the National Association of Biology Teacher's statement also
indicated that. Now --

ES: Wait, wait a minute. The statement was changed in the way
that you --

PJ: Yes, I understand that but I mean that there was some
reason for concern in the --

ES: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

PJ: -- final version of the statement. Yes, I wasn't -- I was
just trying to agree with you there.

ES: Correct.

PJ: Now, I'm trying to help you with this credibility problem.
[laughs] And what I wonder is, wouldn't it be a good idea at this point
if the National Academy of Sciences which so vigorously addressed these
issues when it was fighting the legal battle against creation science --
took the issue up again. And developed a panel -- the last time they
appointed seven scientists and four lawyers to this panel, so Mr. Lynn
and I could both be there -- to address the question what is the message
they want to send to the public. Do they want to send the public the
message that evolution is an unsupervised, unintelligent, impersonal
process? Do they want to send a message that is so effectively used for
promotion of atheistic materialism? Or do they want to criticize that as
non-science? Wouldn't it be a good idea --

MK: You can answer that question --

PJ: Yes, wouldn't it be a good idea, to take that up?

ES: There are about nine questions --

PJ: Would you agree with me that they should take it up?

ES: Okay, well, I said -- there are things you said that I agree
with, and things you said that I don't agree with. Let's start
with the places where we agree. I agree that many scientists have been
very sloppy about how they use terms like natural selection, purpose,
etc -- and I for one, as Phil has kindly pointed out, have criticized
this, I've criticized Dawkins. Many other scientists have at all. I am
not a believer. I would agree philosophically with Richard Dawkins. But
I don't think that he should be confusing his philosophical views with
science. He shouldn't be passing his philosophical views about
materialism off as if they're inevitably arising from evolution. So I
think that, in order to encourage you, I think we are going to see more
things like the NABT statement. We're going to see more recognition on
the part of the science and education communities, that indeed we have
to be more careful with how we use terms. And I accept that.

MK: You can -- you can ask --

ES: The good news is that the National Academy of Science is
re-writing the "Science and Creationism" booklet and I am on the committee
that's advising --

PJ: Yes, I know. It's a very one-sided movement.

ES: Well, one-sided in the sense we're all in favor of the
teaching of evolution. That's doesn't sound too strange.

MK: Take this opportunity to ask some questions.

ES: Yes, sir. In my reading of your materials, Phil, I see
that you have argued three things. Evolution, which I have just defined
as "descent with modification" -- doesn't happen. A second
thing that you argue is that Darwinism which is natural selection --
evolution by natural selection -- Darwin -- natural selection is not a
powerful enough mechanism to produce descent with modification. A third
thing I see in your writings, is that science and especially evolution,
is inherently a metaphysical belief system. Now, lawyers are used to
hypothetical questions, so if you don't mind my asking you a
hypothetical question?

PJ: Don't mind at all.

ES: If you could wave a wand over this audience, and make
everyone here in this audience, agree with one of those points. Which is
your most important one? What really grabs you?

PJ: There's no doubt about what the key point is. By the way,
of course I don't deny there is such a thing as descent with
modification, the question is how much it explains, this descent. But
the key question, and the only really important one from a philosophical
and cultural standpoint is the mechanism. Can you make those things that
look as if they were designed for a purpose, those extremely
complicated, irreducibly complex biological organisms through a
mindless, material process? Specifically, the accumulation of
micro-mutations through natural selection. The mechanism is the big
issue.

ES: Number two in other words. If I could follow up with that.
Are you aware of the arguments that are going on in evolutionary biology
today in which the role of natural selection is debated. There already
is quite a conversation --

PJ: I am very aware --

ES: -- as to how much natural selection explains. Uh, what
about the other mechanisms that are suggested to produce evolutionary
change?

PJ: There aren't really any other mechanisms, that's why
natural selection remains. And you can see this whenever the criticism
comes up --

ES: Well --

PJ: It's very effective criticism from Stephen Jay Gould and
others. But there is no alternative to do the adaptation-building
process. And Gould himself says that in his recent article
"Darwinian Fundamentalism."

ES: But even you agree that natural selection is adequate for
producing microevolutionary processes?

PJ:
Well, microevolution is misnamed. Natural selection as in,
for example, the Finch beak variation example, brings out the variation
already present in the gene pool in a fundamentally stable population,
it doesn't create anything --

MK: How, how about explaining that?

PJ: Yes, Finch beaks? In a population of birds on an island --

ES: Well, breeds of dogs.

PJ: -- the Finch beaks are a little larger sometimes, a little
smaller sometimes, on the average the population is essentially stable,
it isn't going anywhere and isn't changing into anything.

ES: What do you -- what is your unit of change that
microevolution applies to?

PJ: The question --

ES: What is a "kind" in other words?

PJ: Yeah, the question is the source of genetic information.

ES: No, no, no, there's --

PJ: They're much more complex than a computer program or a
spaceship. What is the origin of that information? When you got a gene
pool with all that information in it, it can vary within limits.

ES: I'm sorry, Phil, I didn't make my question clear. You talk
about species of Finch on an island and the amount of genetic
variability in that species. And your argument I think is you just get
changed within the kind. What is a "kind" ? I mean, so if dogs
are a kind, are wolves part of that kind? If dogs and wolves are part of
the kind, are coyotes part of the kind? What's the limit of genetic
variability, what's the group, what's the unit that you're talking about in
which microevolution can take place?

PJ: Yes, I don't think we know precisely what the limits of
variation are. With domestic animal breeding you haven't been able even
to get speciation.

ES: Oh, no. [chuckles]

PJ: I think there's good circumstantial evidence there
may have been wider change and development at some time in the past by
mechanisms that aren't understood. What you clearly don't get, is the
classes, the phyla, the major groups, the major innovations and complex
organs that way.

Michael Behe (MB): Several key scientific discoveries point
strongly to the conclusion that the universe and life are the products
of intelligent activity. Those discoveries are: first, that the universe
had a beginning; second, that the universe is finely-tuned for the
existence of life; third, is the intractability of the question of the
origin of life; and fourth, is the discovery of massive interactive
complexity in the cell. Let me explain this fourth point. The cell is
run by molecular machines. For example, in the first figure, it shows
the bacterial flagellum, which is literally an outboard-motor that
bacteria use to swim, with a rotor, stator, bushings, drive-shaft, and
more. The interactive complexity of the parts of the flagellum appears
to indicate that the machine was purposely designed. Science should not
shy away from that idea.

[ Picture right: The flagellum is an organelle that has three parts. There is a basal body consisting of a reversible rotary motor embedded in the cell wall, beginning within the cytoplasm and ending at the outer membrane. There is a short proximal hook, which is a flexible coupling or universal joint. And there is a long helical filament, which is a propeller. Torque is generated between a stator connected to the rigid framework of the cell wall (to the peptidoglycan) and a rotor connected to the flagellar filament. The proteins MotA and MotB are thought to constitute the elements of the stator; FliF, G, M, and N (the MS and C rings) those of the rotor; FlgB, C, F, and G those of the drive shaft; and FlgH and I (the L and P rings) those of the bushing that guides the driveshaft out through the outer layers of the cell wall.
]

The second figure shows the familiar drawing of very similar embryos
of fish, salamander, chicken, and human gradually turning into different
forms. Recent work, however, has shown that the drawing is fraudulent,
faked by a man named Ernst Haeckel in the 19th century. Thus a big
problem that Darwinism was thought to have solved -- embryology -- turns
out not to have been solved after all. Such strong challenges both new
and old show the need to break out of Darwinian patterns of thought,
beginning with the acknowledgement that much of life and the universe
appears purposely designed.

[ Picture left: Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes. (source: Elizabeth Pennisi,
et al "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997
-- Science 1997 277: 1435) ]

MK: Thank you Professor Behe. [audience applause] Professor
Miller?

Kenneth Miller (KM): Michael, I'd like to start out by
pouncing upon the notion of irreducible complexity which is a point that
you make again and again in your book, Darwin's Black Box. On
page 43 of this book, you use a mousetrap as an example of irreducible
complexity, it's right here in the book. And you point out that a
mousetrap has five parts, and like a biochemical system you claim that
if you take one of those parts away, it won't work anymore. The five
parts include the base, the spring, the clapper which does the business
end, a catch, and a little piece to hold the bait. And I have a working
mousetrap here, it's actually a rat-trap so I want to be very careful
with my fingers. I have here another trap from which I have removed a
part. I've taken away the -- the trigger. According to Dr. Behe's
analogy of the mousetrap as irreducibly complex, I have now removed a
part and therefore it must not work. And this applies to biochemical
systems as well. Exercising as much care as I can -- I am going to take
the catch -- [the trap slips] whoops a little more care --

MB: Is that relevant to the argument there? [laughter]

KM: It is directly relevant, Mike. And I'm going to set it up,
and what I have done is to remove one part and modify another. I hope
the cameras can see this, I want to demonstrate to the audience that the
working mousetrap works just fine [Click!] -- and I want to demonstrate
to the audience that the one that Dr. Behe said was irreducibly complex,
if we remove a part, he says it won't work anymore. [Click!]

MK: Uh, can one of you --

KM: It looks like it works fine.

MK: Can one of you explain the significance of irreducible
complexity? [laughter]

KM: I would be delighted to since I'm asking the questions.

MB: Is there a question in here somewhere?

KM: The argument -- the question is straightforward. The
argument is that when you see a system made up of multiple parts, such
as a biochemical system, if you take one of those parts away it will not
work, and therefore the separate parts could not have evolved. And what
I've just shown you is that your analogy which you used -- to the mice
trap -- the mousetrap first of all, is flawed. And secondly, it doesn't
apply to biochemistry either because biochemical systems can often
function missing one of their parts. Isn't that true?

MB: Well, it turns out it is not true. Since my book has
come out, a number of people have Emailed me and sent me letters about
ways that perhaps a mousetrap could function without all of those parts.
And it turns out that Professor Miller didn't do away with the catch, he
used another part of the mousetrap as a catch. The mousetrap still needs
those five parts. And the absence of something functioning as a catch,
it just doesn't work.

KM: Now, let me --

MB: Other people -- other people have Emailed me that perhaps
you can do away with the platform -- you can do away with the platform
by nailing all of the parts --

KM: Michael, let me, let me go ahead right now --

MB: -- of the mousetrap to the floor. Just a second.

KM: -- rather than hear your speech about the mousetrap and
explain why this is biochemically relevant.

MB: Listen, you asked a two-minute question in my five-minute
time --

MK: Yeah, yeah. I agree, I agree. You get some time.

MB: Somebody Emailed me that you do not need the platform
either to make the mousetrap work. All you have to do is take the parts
and nail them to the floor, and then it works just fine. Well, you know,
you're using the floor as the platform. So you can use a rock as a
catch, or something. The point is you need all those functions. And in
my book, which Ken alluded to, I explain why many biochemical systems
are like that too. You need all those functions to make them work.

KM: Now let's see if that's correct. Let's take a real
biological example. In the chart that I have here, what I have shown
basically is a very complicated chemical pathway in which fucose, a
sugar is metabolized. It turns out that if you carry out experiments in
which you delete the gene, which produces the enzyme that metabolizes
fucose, under controlled conditions where you can observe them, what
happens in a few generations is that the bacteria evolve a new enzyme.
They evolve an enzyme that works in the reverse direction, they do it by
modification of pre-existing genes, and they evolve a new biochemical
pathway. This Michael, I would suggest is the exact thing which you are
claiming is impossible and yet it can be routinely observed under
laboratory conditions. Again, isn't that true?

MB: Well, I disagree with you. No, that is not irreducibly
complex. Additionally --

KM: Can you explain why it's not irreducibly complex? It's got
all the parts.

MK: Can someone take a crack at explaining what irreducible
complexity is?

MB: Let me do something else. Instead of having a biochemistry
lecture here, my book in which I explain these concepts which cannot be
explained very well in a few minutes, has been reviewed by a number of
scientists. What have they said? In National Review, it was
reviewed by a --

KM: Excuse me, I would suggest that a discussion of Dr. Behe's
reviews is not relevant to the question.

MK: No, no. Well, I'm allowing him 30 or 40 seconds.

MB: James Shapiro, a biochemist -- a professor of biochemistry
at the University of Chicago wrote in National Review:
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any
fundamental biochemical or cellular system. Only a variety of wishful
speculations." So apparently he does not think that this is a
relevant example either. Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the
University of Chicago, wrote in Nature, the world's leading
science magazine -- science journal: "There is no doubt that the
pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex and their evolution will
be hard to unravel. We may forever be unable to envisage the first
proto-pathways."

KM: May I ask a question --

MB: Nobody has claimed that these things have been explained.

MK: Now guess what, we're out of time. Thanks very much Mr.
Behe. [audience applause]

MB: You bet.

MK: Professor Ruse? Professor Ruse, you're up. Professor Ruse
will make an opening statement and then submit to questioning.

Michael Ruse vs. Panel

Michael Ruse (MR): I've been told I've got a minute and a half
to make an opening statement. I'm a philosopher. I've never said
anything in a minute and a half I'm afraid. I can't even get to the
verbs in a minute and a half, so let me make my points very quickly. I
-- I accept evolution, the fact of evolution, so you know where I stand
on that. I believe in a tree-life form all the way up to us, from some 4
billion years ago. I am myself a Darwinian, I think that natural
selection is the major mechanism. I recognize that there is significant
debate amongst evolutionists as to how far natural selection goes. I
think we all accept natural selection probably as the major mechanism.
Most don't go as far as I do, and Richard Dawkins do, but certainly I
accept natural selection. Creation -- I quite often use the word
creation in my writings, and I don't mean it sarcastically any more than
Charles Darwin did. However, I don't accept Creationism with a capital
"C" -- I think that this is a form of fundamentalist religion.
I don't think it's science, I certainly don't think it's good science,
but frankly folks, I don't think it's very good religion either, whether
you're a Protestant, whether you're a Catholic, or whether you're a Jew
or any other of the major religions. So that's where I stand.

MK: Thank you Professor Ruse. [audience applause] Professor
Johnson?

PJ: Michael, in your book Darwinism Defended, you say
that "Many contemporary Darwinists show a strong liberal commitment
in their politics and sexual morality, whereas advocates of creation
want to go back to a strict biblical morality." And you conclude
the chapter by saying, "Darwinism has a great past. Let us work to
see that it has an even greater future." Isn't that something very
inappropriate to say of a scientific theory? Do you ever hear anyone say
"gravity has had a great past, let's work together to see that it
has a great future."

MR: [chuckles] Well, why not Phil? Why not indeed? I mean, I'm
all in favor of gravity having a great future. [audience laughter] In
fact, I'm taking a plane tomorrow, I'll be very worried if gravity gives
up. No, I mean, the point is it's certainly the case that many
Darwinians, many evolutionists have been liberal, but by no means all.
You know and I know, that there have been many evolutionists who've
been, I won't say to the right of Mr. Buckley, but certainly in that
corner if you know what I mean. Certainly there have been Darwinians,
Sir Ronald Fischer, I mean his social views, you know, make one sort of
wake up in the middle of the night and sweat [laughs]. So certainly,
well make me anyhow. Certainly, lots of people have held conservative
views. I suspect you're probably right, I suspect that most scientists
today accept more liberal views than conservative views. But I don't see
an absolute connection. But I do agree, I do hope that Darwinism does
have a great future, and I hope that you and I can contribute together
to do this.

David Berlinski (DB): Well, we're going to do our best to see
that it doesn't have a great future.

MR: [chuckles]

DB: You've given a very sonorous description of change in the
universe. I'm wondering whether your worldview includes a scientific
theory, that would be recognizable by any physicist or a mathematician?
Things change I entirely agree, they do change. Is there something to
Darwinism beyond that?

MR: I got the kind of feeling that this is the kind of
question, if I say "Yes" you're going to catch me --

DB: Yes, but where is the scientific theory of biology that
you are proposing to endorse? Where is the theory?

MR: Right. Yes, I think that Darwinism -- Darwinism is a
scientific theory. Of course I think --

DB: And the Mississippi is a river, but where is the theory
beyond having named?

MR: Where is the theory?

DB: Yes. Where is it? I've never been able to discern it.
Simply saying that things change is not a theory.

MR: You and I are both philosophically trained, and you know
that we're both into rhetoric at this point. Because you know perfectly
well --

DB: That's all there is.

MR: No, no, let's be serious about this for a moment. You know
perfectly well, if you look at the works -- say the writings of somebody
like Richard Lewontin, you're certainly -- and his mentor Dobzhansky --
you're certainly going to find theories there. Where people are putting
forward Mendelian Genetics, they're putting forward the Hardy-Weinberg
Law, where people are showing how selection can work on this. Where they
went out, studied fruit flies, both in nature and experimentation --

DB: Yes, I agree entirely, the emphasis of the question can
always be displaced by the mechanism of fog dispersion. My question is,
with respect to the great, aching, global questions of life, where is
the theory that you propose as an explanation? Does it go beyond the
mantra random mutation and natural selection or is there some solid
theory that a physicist would recognize, that an engineer can implement?

MR: [chuckles] Well I don't accept the word "mantra"
you see -- once again you're using a persuasive definition which you're
slipping in there. Of course it's a global theory. If you go say, to
island biogeography, the work that Darwin did, looking at the Finches,
looking at the reptiles on the Galapagos. Why are they similar, but
different? Similar to South America, not similar to Africa? Because they
came there, and they evolved.

MK: Mr Ruse. Mr. Behe, I'm sorry.

MB: Michael, uh --

MR: Michael vs. Michael.

MB: [chuckles] In 1989, the editor of Nature magazine
John Maddox wrote an editorial with the interesting title "Down
with the Big Bang." And in it he wrote: "Creationists, and
those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have
ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang. That they might say
is when and how the universe was created." And he didn't like that
and declared it to be "philosophically unacceptable," the Big
Bang theory. So my question is, as a philosopher, do you think
scientists use non-scientific criteria sometimes for their evaluation of
theories?

MR: Oh, absolutely, no question about that. But I'm not doing
so at the moment. [chuckles]

MB: But John Maddox may have done so in the past?

MR: Well, he's an editor. [chuckles]

MK: Mr. Berlinski, do you want to continue? Or Mr. Buckley?

WB: To what extent do we rely on metaphors in exchanges of
this kind? The -- You've resisted Mr. Johnson's saying that -- in such
arguments metaphors have been loaded and are tendentious. You say well,
you're not doing that. Does that mean you disavow those who do, as a
matter of -- as a philosophical matter, or simply as a polemical matter?

MR: No, Mr. Buckley. I take metaphor very seriously. I think
that, one uses metaphors in religious contexts, certainly in political
contexts, and there's no question but that one uses them in scientific
contexts as well. I mean, Natural Selection, Struggle for Existence,
Arms Race today, Selfish Gene, I mean these are all metaphors. So I
fully accept that science, contemporary science if you like, is loaded
with metaphors. I've never denied that. But the question is, where do
you go from there? Does that mean it's purely a human creation? Or does
that mean that having devised a theory, whether it's Behe's theory, or
somebody else's theory, can we then go out and check it against the
world? And I think that one can in science, and I think that despite
what Mr. Berlinski says, I think that one can in evolutionary biology.
And evolutionary biologists do just that.

DB: Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great 19th
century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following
Freudianism and Marxism into the nether regions, and I'm quite sure that
Freud, Marx, and Darwin are commiserating one with the other, in the
dark dungeon where discarded gods gather. [audience laughs] The problem
facing us at the end of the 20th century with a magnificent body of
theoretical accomplishments in physics and mathematics, and a very rich
body of descriptive material in biology, is to come to an understanding
that when it comes to the large global issues that Darwin's theory is
intended to address, we simply do not have a clue. This is a daunting
admission to make, but if we're intellectually honest, we should make
it. The mechanism that Darwin proposed, that of random search or a
stochastic shuffle in known to be inadequate in every domain in which
it's applied. It's known to be inadequate in linguistics, and it's
certainly inadequate when it comes to the overwhelming complexity of
living forms. There is no reason on earth to believe that this mechanism
is adequate to the task that it sets itself.

If it should come to pass in the fullness of time that we discover
that there is no explanation for life, we will have to accept it. If it
should come to pass that we discover in the fullness of time that the
only explanation for life is that it is a process designed for
transcendental purposes by a transcendental figure, we will have to
accept that too. And if that should come to pass, I would like to ask,
who among us will genuinely feel diminished? Thank you.

MK: Don't go away. [audience applause]

DB: Don't go away.

MK: Barry Lynn?

BL: Mr. Berlinski, I do want to commend you for the rich
description of biological systems and species in your Commentary
article. You claim that there are some species that have what you at one
point refer to as weird characteristics that are nearly unique. For
example, only a few plants eat insects, are carnivorous, why aren't all
of them? You also ask, if evolution is true, "Then why are women,
but not cats, born without the sleek tails that would make them even
more alluring than they already are?" [audience chuckles] Well now,
aside from aesthetics, you know I saw the Catwoman / Batman film too
[chuckles], but aside from that, why -- you don't seem to understand
that different ecological environments in the distant past, as well as
today, produce different adaptations. Why is that so strange to you that
you would find it --

BL: You don't understand that different ecological spaces
require different adaptability? They're the same kind --

DB: No.

BL: You don't? Well it seems fairly easy to figure out, that
if you're living in a desert --

DB: That is the difficulty with the Darwinian --

BL: -- finding water would be more --

DB: -- it's always easy to persuade yourself that you've
understood something when you haven't understood a thing. The issue
before us is not whether retroactively we can explain an adaptation,
but whether we can draw that adaptation from general principles. This is
what Darwinian theory cannot do, and this is -- this is the requirement
of normal science.

BL: Well, I think --

DB: If I'm doing astrophysics I have a dynamical theory. I can
simulate the evolution of the universe and I know where the theory
agrees with the data and where it does not. I cannot do that in biology.
Whatever happens, happens.

BL: Well, with a simple sentence you could: random selections
which make a species -- a species more likely to survive are beneficial.
That's a very simple idea and it explains why in fact some species
survive and others do not.

ES: I mean, adaptive differential reproduction is the definition of
natural selection. Why is this a problem? Why is this a problem?

DB: Que sera sera. What will happen, will happen. That could
not be the locus in which you repose your trust. What will happen, will
happen. Big deal.

ES: Well, I don't know, it may just -- it may not necessarily
enlighten our listeners actually because it is technical. But that's the
whole point.

DB: It's not technical. It's just means what survives,
survives. We know that.

ES: One of the reasons -- one of the reasons why people like
me who deal with the creation-evolution issue all the time, get very
frustrated dealing with say, Institute for Creation Research people and
so forth, is because they are constantly saying "X" didn't
happen, and then it takes a great deal longer to explain why
"X" did happen, gaps in the fossil record or whatever. Let me
ask you a question about your Commentary article. The major --
you said in your Commentary article, page 20, "the major
transitional sequences in the fossil record are incomplete."

DB: Yes, they are.

ES: And you cited as your reference --

DB: Romer.

ES: -- Romer's hot-off-the-press
1966 article.

DB: No, but --

ES: Now, are you -- Romer. Romer is a very great man and very knowledgeable.
1966 is not exactly cutting-edge paleontology. Are you familiar sir --

DB: You're absolutely right. Let's turn to Carroll --

ES: No, no, no. Let's -- Are you familiar with the research
that's been done in the last 31 years?

DB: Hm, hm.

ES: I can't imagine that [audience chuckles] because you would realize that the
major argument going on among paleontologists dealing with the
reptile-mammal transition is, where the hell do you draw the line? These
things grade insensibly into each other --

DB: Is there a question that I can answer?

ES: -- and they have no ability to say,
these guys are mammals, these guys are reptiles, because they roll into
each other.

DB: Yes, I agree with the tail-end of your question, late
reptilian transition to mammal is well documented in the record,
although nowhere near as well as Darwinian theory requires. That's a big
distinction. But if you dislike the citation to Romer who's a great
figure in paleontology, let's look at Carroll's new book on chordate
paleontology, hot-off-the-presses, page 4, left side of the page,
Evolution heading, third paragraph, second sentence, what does he say?
He says the evidence shows that major transitions are missing from the
fossil record just as Eldredge, Gould, and Stanley claim.

ES: In reference to the chordates. Now the fact that we don't
have --

DB: But that's the strongest case. That's the strongest case.

ES: -- all the information -- The fact that we don't have all
the infor -- No, I was talking about the reptile-mammal transition. The
chordates are very very much earlier than that.

DB: The gravamen of your argument is the chordates.

MK: Are people familiar with chordates?

DB: Vertebrates. That's us.

ES: No, chordates are the group in which vertebrates belong.

KM: We're all chordates here, Mike.

DB: If you turn to the insects, the situation is catastrophic.
There is no fossil documentation, none whatsoever.

ES: Of what?

DB: For the insects.

ES: There is very good fossil documentation --

DB: Very poor. Butterfly, Lepodoptera? Bang.

ES: -- of the relationship between ants and wasps. There's
excellent transitions -- oh, but we won't count those -- let's talk
about the missing, the ones we don't have --

BL: Every time we find 16 new things, new fossils to fill in
the so-called fossil record that was missing, you just say, fine --16
more -- so my question to you is how many 16 to the what power do we
have to discover before you accept this as true?

DB: I'll tell you exactly, here's what Darwinian theory
rigorously requires. For every significant -- every significant
morphological or physiological feature in a modern species we should
have a panoply of intermediate forms that explains how they arise.

ES: No, no, [chuckles] that's not what Darwinian theory
requires.

DB: We don't have them for some good reasons, but we have
nothing like an explanation for the gaps that exist --

BL: The fog is rolling in again.

DB: I'm telling you, the species aren't there.

ES: We were talking first of all about evolution, descent with
modification, now we shift over to mechanisms of evolution --

DB: No, I haven't mentioned mechanisms.

MK: And we're out of time. [audience applause] Thank you very
much Mr. Berlinski. Professor Miller? Professor Miller, it's your chance
to make an opening statement.

Kenneth Miller vs. Panel

MK: With more props.

[ Picture below-right: Of all the species that have ever existed on Earth,
about 99% are now extinct. It is thought that up to 10 million species are alive today,
although only 1.5 million have been discovered. This means that as many as one billion species
(or at least 150 million) have lived on the Earth at one time. At least five major mass extinction
events have occurred during the history of life on Earth, as well as numerous minor ones.
Most of these events were a result of major climatic shifts and changes in sea level,
and perhaps in some cases, extraterrestrial (meteorite) impacts. The fossil record bears the indelible
mark of these successive waves of extinction, followed by proliferations of new and different life forms.
]

KM: Can't live without them. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed Dr.
Berlinski's statement, because he focused in on one of the major
deficiencies of the four people on the other side of the table who argue
against evolution, and that major theoretical deficiency is they have
no explanation for natural history. And to me as an experimental
biologist I am frustrated if I do not see a theoretical framework into
which the past can be explained. We know something about the past, and
there are facts about the fossil record, and I'll tell you in a very
general way one of those facts. And that is that fossils show a
succession of types over time.

Now we know the other side advocates intelligent design as a primary
characteristic of the fossil record. Let's explore the primary
scientific characteristic of intelligent design when it is squared with
the fossil record. The fossil record, and I can give you specific
examples, is characterized best by a sequence of appearances and
disappearances. Now think what that means. What that means is that the
characteristic that best describes the intelligent designer who would
have designed this fossil record is incompetence. Because everything the
intelligent designer designed, with about 1% exception, has immediately
become extinct. Intelligent design has no explanation for the successive
character of the fossil record. Evolution has a perfect explanation, and
that is the appearance of new forms and the extinction of others. And if
you see a scheme for the natural history of intelligent design presented
by the other side tonight, you should treasure it, because they've never
announced one before.

MB: Ken, in my introductory remarks I showed a picture of
Haeckel's
Embryos, those little drawings of embryos looking the same and gradually
turning into --

KM: Indeed you did, and I'm going to give you a hand, because the
picture that you have right here, I have brought an enlarged copy just to help you out.

[ Picture right: "Many naturalists have especially blamed the diagrammatic figures given in the
Athropogeny (Haeckel's The Evolution of Man). Certain technical embryologists have brought most severe accusations against me on this account, and have advised me to substitute a larger number of the elaborated figures, as accurate as possible. I, however, consider that diagrams are much more instructive than such figures, especially in popular scientific works...If it is said
that my diagrammatic figures are 'inaccurate,' and a charge of 'falsifying science' is brought against me, this is equally true of all the very numerous diagrams which are daily used in teaching. All diagrammatic figures are
'inaccurate.' " (Ernst Haeckel, The Evolution of Man, 3rd edition 1876)
]

MB: Okay, thanks very much.

KM: Anything, Mike, anything I can do. [audience chuckles]

MB: And, and you'll notice that it says in Science magazine of
a couple months ago, "Haeckels Embryos, Fraud Rediscovered."

KM: Absolutely.

MB: And which it says, not only did Haeckel add or omit features,
Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale, and
the author of the report says, "it looks like it's turning out to
be one of the most famous fakes in biology." Now in your very good
biology textbook --

KM: Thank you.

MB: -- for high school, it reproduces Haeckel's drawings, and it uses
them in the section of how we know evolution occurred, and it points to
them as saying that embryos should be preserved in the early stages.
Now my question is --

KM: Embryos should be preserved in the early stages?

MB: Well, embryos -- conserved in the early stages.

KM: Okay, I think we should all be preserved in our early stages.

MB: [chuckles] My question is this, you know, you were victimized by
Haeckel's fraud --

KM: Indeed.

MB: -- as was everybody else, but should -- do you think your publisher
should notify school districts to have them tell teachers to point this
mistake -- or this fraudulent activity out to students?

KM: Oh absolutely. And I will do better than that. First of all, the
letters to my publisher changing these figures are already off, and
secondly what I have done for the textbook -- and I appreciate the
commercial for this, and I'd be glad to give the URL for those of you
who are interested -- is Joe Levine and I, my co-author have set up an
Internet web site in which we keep scientific updates to our textbook.
And this is something which will go up in the web site in a matter of
days as a scientific update. I think it's very significant and I
appreciate your support on this.

MB: That's great. I just have one more question if I can
squeeze it in --

PJ: In my discussion with Eugenie we talked about the
mechanism as the all-important thing, and the creative power of the
mutation selection mechanism as to produce all this genetic information.

KM: Indeed.

PJ: What is the most powerful demonstration in your opinion that the
Darwinian mechanism of natural selection has this great creative power?

[ Picture below-right: "Hawaii harbors several moths of the genus Hedylepta that feed only on banana plants. Other species of the genus feed on other
Hawaiian plants, and similarities of form demonstrate that one of these that feeds on palms is the ancestor of the banana-feeding species. Each of the
banana-feeding species is restricted to high mountain forests on only one or two islands, and the reason they must bear a descendant rather than ancestral
relationship to the palm-feeding species is that, while palm trees are native Hawaiian plants, banana trees are not. In fact Polynesians first introduced the
banana plant to the Hawaiian Islands only about a thousand years ago. This sets an upper limit for the evolution of the new banana-feeding insect species.
For all we know, they evolved in a small fraction of this interval." (Stanley, Steven M.,
"Evolution of Life: Evidence for a New Pattern", Great Ideas Today, Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1983, page
21) ; also see Zimmerman, E.C. "Possible Evidence of
Rapid Evolution in Hawaiian Moths", 1960 Evolution 14(1):137-138 ]

KM: Well, I would give you -- you asked me for
the most powerful one,
and I will give you two. The first one that I will give you are the
repeated observations of random mutation and natural selection as you
like to call them in your own terms, producing new species. And I can
give you several examples of new species that have emerged within human
observation. The best example that I can give you is the butterfly, the genus
of butterfly known as Hedylepta. Hedylepta is a genus of butterfly that feeds on various plants,
it's endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, which
means it's only found there. And there turn out to be two species of
Hedylepta with mouthparts that only allow them -- only allow them to
feed on bananas. Now why is that significant? It is significant because
bananas are not native to the Hawaiian Islands. They were introduced
about 1000 years ago by the Polynesians, we know this from the written
records of the Hawaiian kingdom. And what that means is, that by mutation and
natural selection, these two species have emerged on the Hawaiian Islands
within the last 1000 years. And I think that's a very good case in
point.

And I'll give you another one if you would indulge me -- but I
figured, you only asked for one. Want another?

PJ: Sure, go ahead. [audience chuckles]

KM: Okay, here's another. In the November 7th or November 14th
issue of Science magazine, a number of investigators wanted to
test the Darwinian hypothesis that you folks say is never tested. And
the way in which they did this was to take the receptor protein for the
human-growth hormone, it's a receptor to which the human-growth hormone
fits in precisely. And they did it a terrible genetic disservice. They
mutated -- they cut out an essential amino acid, right in the middle of
the receptor called Tryptophan. With that gone, just like that
mousetrap, it wouldn't have been expected to work. They then allowed a
natural selection process to take place to see whether the cells under
their own observation could mutate the receptor gene sufficiently to
bind the receptor. And after seven generations, lo and behold, there it
was. And it illustrates beautifully the ability of natural selection to
respond to mutations and proteins to co-evolve.

MK: Mr. Behe?

MB: I'd like to ask a different question -- I do not find that
result impressive, but we can talk about that later --

KM: When you say you don't find it impressive, that's what
Richard Dawkins calls, "the argument from personal
incredulity" -- which is my evidence --

PJ: But you realize -- No -- [audience chuckles]

KM: -- my evidence against evolution is that I don't believe
it.

PJ: Well, it's because -- it's because as far as what it has
to do. It has to create this immense amount of genetic information, much
more complex than any --

KM: Indeed, sir -- Philip, you're right --

PJ: -- and without recording it in the fossil record. That's
why it's not impressive.

KM: -- you know what Phil, I just gave you two examples, and
that's still not enough.

MB: May I ask another question related to Haeckel's embryos?

KM: Oh absolutely.

MB: You not only showed these embryos in your book, but like
other people, you said that things should be that way. You said in your
book, uh -- "mutations that affect early stage of development are
likely to be lethal or deadly." And that "mutations that cause
less drastic changes would occur at later stages." Again, you're
not alone in this. Bruce Alberts, who wrote Molecular Biology of the
Cell, says much the same thing. Now we know that is not the case,
and that early embryos can in fact change. Because you and Bruce Alberts,
the president of the National Academy of Sciences --

MK: Is there a question?

MB: Yes, here it is. [chuckles] Because you two did not --
because you thought Darwinism would produce this result which is now
shown to be fraudulent, is it safe to say that no scientist in the world
understands how Darwinism could affect embryology?

KM: Oh absolutely not. May I answer even though we are out of
time?

MK: Very briefly.

KM: Okay very brief answer is, you read a quote and you
pretended it meant something else. The quote that you read was mutations
in the early stage are "less likely" to survive, not
impossible, and then you pretended to say that it meant that it couldn't survive. The fact that something is less likely --

MB: You pointed to the figure --

KM: -- the fact that something is less likely, I'm answering
-- the fact that something is less likely does not rule it out. I agree
with that, Alberts would agree with that, and I think everyone in the
audience would agree --

MK: Thank you. Thank you Professor Miller. [audience applause]

KM: Thank you.

William Buckley vs. Panel

MK: Mr. Buckley will now submit to questioning from the
opposition team.

MR: Um, let me kick off Mr. Buckley. I guess my basic question
is, why are you on that side rather than ours? [audience chuckles] I
mean, are your objections religious? Are you against evolution? Are you
against natural selection? Are your objections religious? Are they
social, or what?

WB: Well, I -- I object to the way in which your confederates
-- we'll leave you out of it, as a matter of politesse --
conduct themselves. They conduct themselves by simply assuming that
people who argue the contrary, are naives or ignorant. It seems to me
manifestly they are not. But my objection to your position is its
ideological fixity. What you're speaking from is a dogmatic position,
from which everything else derives, as one would expect. Right?
[audience chuckles]

MR: I can't help feeling that at Seton Hall University,
speaking from a dogmatic position is not necessarily a fault. Um --
[chuckles]

WB: Well, no. That's -- that's quite correct. If you could
give us a progenitor more conclusive than Darwin, we might accept his
dogmas. The notion that all dogmas are equal is -- what?

MK: False.

WB: Well, at least false. But it's also -- it's also a
disguise really for -- for unmethodical thought, I would guess. Go
ahead, what -- what line are you pursuing?

MR: Well, I -- I -- basically I'm trying to understand why it
is that you're against evolution. I mean, I could well understand -- is
it because Richard Dawkins has linked evolution with atheism? Is it
because some evolutionists have been socialists? Why? Because if it is,
we'll give you a list that you'd like.

WB: No, let's not be silly. The -- for scientific materialists
the materialism comes first, the science comes thereafter. So my
quarrel, and that of most of my colleagues is with the -- the extent to
which you seek to imperialize over the entire question to the point of
opposing creationist thought in scientific departments within the
schools. It seems to me quite unnecessary in order to advance your own
postulates.

MK: Ms. Scott?

ES: Is it necessary to invoke the hand of the Almighty in
something like understanding cell division, or understanding an internal
combustion engine?

WB: No --

ES: If not, why is it necessary in understanding the history
of life?

WB: It is so frustrating to say something then to have to say
it again. I said in my opening statement, the second sentence, was that
we don't demand that you acknowledge creation and displace evolution. We
demand that you acknowledge creation as an alternative explanation, one
which we find more plausible. Now this is as far as I am ready to go in
this exchange. I am a practicing Catholic. Under the circumstances I've
made certain commitments. But none of what I have said yet derives
exclusively from that position. Mr. Berlinski is himself not a believer,
and he's certainly eloquent in his dissent from your position.

ES: I think the -- well go ahead, Ken.

KM: Let me ask a question along those lines, because you bring
up your faith. And I have to tell you that over the weekend, looking for
a weakness, I read Nearer, My God your recent book, which I much
admire. I thought it was a marvelous explanation of the faith that you
and I share. And I want to read a quotation to you. And as everyone in
the audience will know, I came tonight with the hope to be remembered as
"the guy with the placards." [audience chuckles] And the quotation -- the
quotation is an important one: "...new knowledge has led to the
recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is
indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of
knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
significant argument in favor of this theory." Would you care
to speculate who said that, sir?

WB: [chuckles] Well, the answer is -- I have no quarrel with it.
Within ten years after Darwin died, they were able to document to a point that he hadn't, in the 20 years since he had visited the
Galapagos, certain phenomena. I have no quarrel with those phenomena.
But I think it's correct to classify them as microevolutionary, not
macroevolutionary.

KM: Well, in that point I think you're in disagreement with Pope John
Paul II, who made that statement.

WB: No, no, now wait a minute. Pope John Paul II said that he could
not countenance any -- any explanation which sought to account for the
forces of living matter other than -- as mere epiphenomena of the
matter, and therefore incompatible with the truth about the man. I have no
quarrel with --

KM: And as a Catholic I agree completely with that. And also as an
evolutionary biologist I accept evolution as the scientific explanation
for life's diversity.

MK: Thank you. [audience applause] Thank you, you're dismissed, yes.
Barry Lynn, captain of the opposing team will submit to questioning from
the affirmative team. Mr. Berlinski, would you like to start?

Barry Lynn vs. Panel

PJ: First question? Um -- Mr. Lynn, in the New York Review of Books this
year, the famous Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who has a very low
opinion of much of what passes as evolutionary science -- the work of
Richard Dawkins for instance -- explained why he nonetheless believed
in essentially that kind of scientific explanation. And he said it's because
"we," meaning scientists like himself, "have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation but
on the contrary that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes, to create a set of concepts that produce material
explanations." And he said that commitment to materialism must
be absolute, "for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." That's
a direct quote from Lewontin. What I want to ask you is that -- if he were to
teach that in the public schools as a doctrine, that is, the truth of
materialism as equivalent to rationality, would that be an establishment
of religion in violation of the Constitution?

BL: No, it just would be bad teaching, because it's an illogical
assumption. The truth is that one can be a theistic believer in
evolution, as I am, and have absolutely no embarrassment about either
side of that equation. I think that the doctor should have probably given me a call and
I would have explained that you do not have to accept this materialism
in order to be a believer that evolution is the best and only credible
description of this magnificent thing we call evolution of life.

PJ: By evolution do you have in mind a system which employs
only material causes without any guidance from a pre-existing
intelligence to produce all of these living things, up to and including
human beings?

BL: No, I certainly find it thrilling that my concept of God
actually permits a God who could choose to start a process called
evolution and develop in the process an incredible number of species all
of which fit in to a unique ecological niche. I find that one of the
thrills of my theology. It's nothing that's --

PJ: Are you speaking of God-guided evolution then?

BL: I'm -- Of course I am because most Americans as we noted
earlier do in fact find no difference with that because unlike the
members of your panel, they understand that there are some questions
that are theological, some are scientific, and that scientific questions
don't involve "Does God exist?" That's not what the scientists
should --

PJ: Well you then support my effort that I've invited Eugenie
Scott into already, to get the National Academy of Sciences to explain
clearly whether God-guided evolution is in fact permissible in the
scientific area.

BL: No, because science does not speak to that question at
all. What you want science to do, is to be able to --

PJ: If they speak to it all the time, they say it's unguided.

BL: No, excuse me I think they took that word out, didn't
they?

PJ: The National Association of Biology Teachers took it out
because it was too explicit. They imply the same thing pervasively
throughout the statement and so do all the other major -- major
textbooks --

BL: I don't have any problem with them taking it out because
it does have the implication that you suggested. I just think that what
you want to do is make it impossible for someone to say with honesty and
integrity, that one believes in a divine creative process, a start, a
foot in the door, maybe more, all the way up to the knee in the door,
and still believe that nothing -- literally nothing that you have said,
or any of you have written in fact degrades the basic idea of evolution.

MK: David Berlinski?

DB: My interest in divine creation is negligible. But I
do have a scientific question to ask you, in fact two scientific
questions, the second logical. Everyone familiar with the
paleontological literature -- every significant paleontologist says that
there are gaps in the fossil record. Do you have a particular reason for
demurring?

BL: No, there are gaps in the fossil record --

DB: So you agree.

BL: -- of course because the fossil record's only been
examined for 130 years --

DB: I didn't ask whether there was an explanation for the
gaps. I asked whether you agree that the fossil record is full of gaps.

BL: Of course it has gaps.

DB: Okay, so to that extent the evidence does not support
Darwin's theory of evolution.

BL: No, that is absolutely wrong.

DB: It follows as the night and the day.

BL: Of course not. How could you have a cell for example,
ladies and gentlemen, hundreds of millions of years old, that would
leave a fossil record? It would disintegrate, it would quite literally
not be able to be found in the fossil record --

DB: I did not insist -- I never suggested that there may not
be explanations of the gaps. But the fact that the fossil record does
not on its face support Darwin's theory of evolution, is a fact.

BL: It does, no it does. It's just you -- your question was
does it prove everything yet? --

DB: -- that maintains that two hypotheses are in contradiction
--

BL: -- and the answer is it doesn't prove anything yet. And
once again I say, how many times do we have to find those intermediate
fossils? How many more steps in the progress from ancient horse to
modern horse do we have to show you?

DB: I gave you a quantitative answer what would satisfy a
scientifically respectable temperament. And you spurned it. All I'm
asking for is enlightenment on a significant point. Darwin's theory
requires a continuous, a multitude of continuous forms. We do not see
that in the fossil record, in fact, major transitions are utterly
incomplete. Would you accept that as an empirical fact?

BL: No, you sound like a guy who is writing a story about
baseball, comes in in the fourth inning, and says well "you know,
I'm going to write about the fourth inning on, the first three innings
didn't happen because I wasn't there to see them." The fact that we
can't find every one of those --

DB: We can't find any of them. We can't find any of the major
transitions between the fish and the amphibio --

BL: -- intermediate fossils yet, in 150 -- of course we find
them. It's just that when we find them doctor, you say it's still not
enough.

MB: Michael, I love your writings. Um -- and in a recent
article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, you talked about
origin of life studies. And you said, a couple of quotes: "A great
deal of the underpinning of discussions on the origin of life have been
more philosophical than anything based in brute experience." And
also, in Origin of Life Studies, "One ought to be alert for
more than pure science, and that more may well be philosophical or
metaphysical." And you say that -- you say "Caveat Emptor."
I agree with you. Should students be taught this?

MR: Should what?

MB: Should high school students be told about your writings?

MR: About my writings? Or about origin of life --

MB: Yeah -- about the philosophical --

MR: Well, I hope so, goodness gracious yes. Um -- I think that
certainly there's a place for that. Whether one were going to discuss
something like origin of life, say in a high school biology class, I
think would be a different matter. Of course in my country in Canada for
instance, we have state-supported church-schools so there would be
certainly no constitutional objection to that. I'm not sure that though
-- that for instance, given a lot of the things which are said about
origin of life, whether it's Sagan, or Lynn Margulis, or that sort of
thing -- it would be appropriate at a high school biology level. But --
you know that and I know that.

MB: Well now Ken has written a good book. And it really is an
excellent book. Uh, but it does --

KM: I appreciate these endorsements.

MB: [chuckles] Yeah, I do like it. I do like it. I urge people
to look at it.

MK: Haven't Ms. Scott and Mr. Lynn written good books?

MB: [chuckles] Uh, No, haven't. [chuckles] Great books, great
books.

ES: Great articles --

MB: [chuckles] But in Ken's book he does talk about Stanley
Miller's stuff, about protenoid theories. Do you think in discuss
-- when high school books do talk about origin of life stuff they
should consider the philosophical aspects as well?

MR: I certainly think that they should cover it. I mean, at
what level, at what depth? I think you have to take it on a case-by-case
basis. If for instance, you were going to ask high school students to,
say accept Haldane's Marxism, as part of the theory, obviously not. If
on the other hand, one were going to talk about evolution, and say well these
are some of the well-known experiments. These are some of the things
they've done. But look folks, be very careful, people tend to read a lot
of things into this. And I hope that a good teacher would do this. I --
I'm quite comfortable with that. I mean, high school kids are pretty
bright you know, and pretty intelligent, and pretty with it. I don't
think that we should dumb down biology for them.

MB: Good. Very good. Um -- now about 15 years ago, you in a
federal court of the United States, I think you said that one of the
characteristics of science -- a scientific theory is that it's
falsifiable. Is that correct?

MR: Yes I did.

MB: Can you tell me -- I put up a picture of the bacterial
flagellum earlier in this discussion. Can you tell me how one could
falsify the assertion that it was Darwinian natural selection working on
random mutation that produced that flagellum?

MR: Well I would have thought that, for a start, you'd look at
some of the molecular evidence. And see for instance whether or not that
-- flagell -- flagellum, is that how you pronounce it?

MB: Yes it is.

MR: For instance whether or not the molecular evidence --
whether it at a molecular level, it's homologous, it looks similar to
things that we want to put in the same class, or the same grouping. Or,
for instance, does it come out more like a human, or something like
that. I would have thought that, if for instance, your flagell -- am I pronouncing --

MB: Flagellum. Like flagulate.

MR: Thank you very much. As I say I'm a philosopher. So I'm
not very good -- I'm good at long sentences, but not long words.
[audience laughs] Um, I would have thought that if this --
microorganism, let me cover myself there, came out with DNA which looked
more like humans, than humans look like --

MK: Answer this question, and then go on the offensive. Answer
this question, then go on the offensive.

MR: Well I am answering the question. I said, that if it
looked -- if the DNA of that microorganism were closer to human beings,
than human beings are to chimpanzees, I think that Darwinians would need
a long night down at the local bar, quite frankly. [audience chuckles]

MK: Now it's your turn to ask questions.

MR: Oh goodo. [chuckles] Well I'm a little -- you know, it's a little
mean, nobody seems to be plugging my books quite as much as I'm plugging
other people's books -- but I did want to talk about Michael Behe's
wonderful book, Darwin's Black Box, where I take it that -- One
of the things I want to compliment you on Michael -- and this is not
just rhetorical but -- is the fact that unlike so many creationists,
certainly creationists in the past, you haven't just attacked other
people, or other people's theories, but that you've tried to explain some
views of your own. And I gather -- well I know that you've put forward this
view about design and complexity. You describe it in terms which, well
the modesty factor doesn't seem to be too high: "The result of
these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell, to investigate life at
the molecular level, is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design.
The result is so unambiguous, so significant, that it must be ranked as
one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The
discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and
Schroedinger, Pasteur and Darwin" --

MK: What's the question?

MR: That's, you know, pretty heavy stuff. Tell us about this
theory, tell us I mean now -- for instance Newton's theory enables us to
quantify, to make predictions -- what is your theory?

MB: Well, it's that you can detect intelligent design in the
interaction of parts of systems. And it's not really, you know the --
suppose you were out walking in a woods with a friend of yours, and all
of a sudden the friend of yours was pulled up by the ankle by a vine
wrapped around it. And as he was left dangling, you pulled him down and
you could reconstruct it and you saw that the limb was covered over with
leaves, and that the vine was staked down. You would immediately know,
that that was designed. It was not a -- it was not an accidental
arrangement of parts --

MR: So design means a designer. Are we talking about God now?

MB: Well, most people think so. I think so. But I want to
leave it open, and not just because I'm being coy.

MR: Now are we talking about a good God now?

MB: Well, let me answer your first question. [chuckles] Let me
answer your first question. Francis Crick in 1972, wrote a paper
entitled "Directed Panspermia." And the burden of the paper
was essentially that problems with imagining an undirected origin of
life on earth were so severe, that perhaps we should consider the
hypothesis that space aliens sent a rocketship filled with spores to
seed life on earth a long time ago. Now if Francis Crick looked at the
bacterial flagellum, or the inter-cellular transport system, or the
blood-clotting system, and said he thought it was designed by a space
alien, I would have no scientific quarrel with him. I argue that you can
tell who the design -- that a system was designed, but the identity of
the designer is a more difficult question.

MR: But is this designer responsible when things go wrong? Or
for parasites, these complex parasites?

MB: Well, that's the "argument from evil" -- that
is, bad things happen to good people, and it's been discussed in
religious literature for many many years, going back to the Book of Job
--

MR: What about complex parasites? Did this designer design
complex parasites? Or is that evolution?

MB: No -- [chuckles]

MR: I mean, do you get all the "good" things and
evolutionists get all the "bad" things?

MK: All right, thank you. That's a very good line and we'll
end on that note. Mr. Buckley and Mr. Lynn? Mr. Buckley, it's your
opportunity to question Mr. Lynn.

William Buckley vs. Barry Lynn

WB: Yeah, Mr. Lynn I'm frankly a little bit emasculated by the
approach of you and your colleagues tonight, which is really very
ingratiating, and it really delights me -- but it seems to me that you're
conveying the impression that the evolutionist theory is other than what
most people know it to be, which is materialist philosophy. Now it's
wonderful that notwithstanding your affinity for that explanation of
things, you still believe in the possibility of a Creator, indeed even
of a Christian Creator -- but what would you make of the following
statement of Richard Lewontin: "the primary problem," he means
of the current confusion, "is not to provide the public with the
knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star, and what genes are made
of, rather the problem is to get them to reject irrational and
supernatural explanations of the world -- the demons that exist only in
their imagination -- and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus:
science as the only begetter of truth." Now that is the public
voice as I understand it of the materialist evolutionist. Do you
transcend it, or do you disavow it, or do you consider it inauthentic,
or what?

BL: No, I just disavow it, because I think that it is
obviously possible to believe in the idea of a God, a God who has a
presence and an interest in humanity, without rejecting the overwhelming
data that supports evolution. And the failure of anything, Mr. Buckley,
to in fact contradict it. In other words, you have picked a few
squabbles with evolution but you haven't even suggested for a moment
what the mechanism is with which you would replace it.

WB: Well, what if one simply advances basic intelligence? And
says, some such thing as that -- in fact, a lot of monkeys turned loose
over an infinite number of time could not, would not reproduce
Shakespeare. Does that sound as an arrogant rejection of -- of a random
explanation for what we see about us?

BL: No, not at all. I think that one of the great things
about randomness and chance is that they are used in this process of
evolution, as I personally view it, as remarkable tools within that
toolbox of God's creative interest. I mean to reject the idea that
chance is something that could be used by the divine is to limit the
power of the divine considerably. The divine is not sitting a bunch of
monkeys in a building with a bunch of typewriters. I think we're a
little more sophisticated than that, and I think that the process of
evolution is far more creative than that.

WB: I think you are -- I think you are more sophisticated
manifestly from -- by my criteria. But Richard Lewontin is a man of very
substantial bona fides in your community. So if we want jointly
to excommunicate him from rational paternity, I think we should do so
piously.

BL: But we Congregationalists of course don't excommunicate.
[audience laughs] That's one of the differences between us.

WB: So therefore -- therefore we will do what with some?
Simply point to that as the excesses to which some nice people
nevertheless go?

BL: I think frankly, Bill, that the truth on this side is that
the folks who represent the position that we've been articulating, have
been very good about going to conferences and trying to separate
people's scientific views from their religious ones. And I wish that the
other side did the same thing. And I wish fundamentally that we could
understand that some questions are theological questions, others are
scientific, and we work better at solving and resolving and even
discussing those questions when we realize that there are two kinds of
language, and two kinds of issues. There's nothing extreme about that
position.

MK: You can now ask philosophical and scientific questions of
Mr. Buckley.

BL: Okay, well Mr. Buckley, you know I have heard it said that
even God does not know the mind of William F. Buckley. [audience
chuckles] But my question is the adverse: do you know the mind of God so
well that you could rule out the possibility that God conceived
evolution as the process to bring His design to fruition?

WB: Well, I decline to answer that question because --

BL: On what grounds?

WB: -- because my imagination is finite, and the Creator's is
not. Under the circumstances I simply pass -- not only for tactical
reasons but for reasons of profound belief. I do find it -- well I can't
answer, go ahead.

BL: No, but let me -- that only goes to half of the question.
Because the truth is that if you are saying that you cannot imagine that
a God could be that creative, that imaginative, then aren't you
limiting in a very severe fashion, your construct of God? I think that's
a very serious question, and I think you should have an answer after 37
books.

WB: No, because I believe that there are mysteries. And that
it is impossible to parse all of God's movements by applying to them the
substantially resourcelessness of our own minds. I don't doubt if you ask
me a simple one -- can I account for the five-year-old
who before we finish tonight will have fallen in from a rooftop and be
killed? No, I can't account for it. On the other hand, I don't think
that -- I don't think that the abundance of incidents of that kind
causes -- are sufficient grounds for rejecting revelation.

BL: Well, I'm not sure I would either -- but I'm not sure that
that addresses the question. But let's move from the theological to the
scientific which is what Michael suggested I could do. I'm trying to
figure out now what it is about evolution that you find so
intellectually challenging that you reject it. Every single major
scientific development over the past many decades that could have
demonstrated that evolution was fundamentally flawed, every one of them
proves quite the opposite. You all remember Gregor Mendel's bean
experiments in terms of experimenting on inherited characteristics, we
all studied that in high school. Carbon dating that shows that the earth
is billions of years old. Had it proved that it was very young, we would
have had many evenings at the bar to discuss that. [audience chuckles]
And even DNA research that shows that the DNA in chimpanzees and
gorillas and humans is so close to being the same --

WB: So your question is?

BL: -- that we must have had a common ancestor. With all this
evidence on one side, what line of science contradicts those powerful
lines in support of our argument?

WB: Well, what is -- what is in my judgment has happened is an
-- a rejection of the materialist explanation of everything that has
happened. At the time that Darwin spoke, he seemed to give us a facile
explanation for a lot of phenomena which we couldn't otherwise explain.
But I think the developments of the last 100 years have given us a
perspective, and that perspective makes increasingly unrealistic the
notion that there is a materialist explanation for everything that is
happening around us. Remember you're saddled with some heavy baggage,
Mr. Dawkins who says, "we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism" --

BL: Yeah but Mr. Dawkins isn't here, so we are not yet saddled
with him.

WB: -- we don't -- sorry?

BL: He is not here, we are not saddled with him. I am just
asking you a question about science which might make you more
comfortable than the questions about theology.

WB: Well, you better get used to -- you better practice the
excommunicative arts.

BL: [chuckles] Well one final question. Fifteen years ago
before Pope John Paul II made his most recent pronouncement, he said
this: "Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was
created by God." He continued: "the Bible does not wish to
teach how heaven was made, but how one goes to heaven." Do you have
any fundamental problem with that?

WB: None whatever.

BL: Well neither do I. And I would once again offer you the
same opportunity offered earlier by Michael, to join this side and to
separate the two kingdoms. [audience chuckles and applause]

MK: Thank you very much both of you. Professor Johnson?
Professor Johnson, it's your opportunity to be -- or opportunity if you
wish to think about it that way, to be interrogated by the
opposition team. Who would like to start?

Phillip Johnson vs. Panel

BL: Mr. Johnson, your career seems built on picking alleged
fleas off of the dog of evolution, but when it comes down to picking the
fleas off, you find they're just pieces of lint, not really a serious
problem for the dog. But you never seem to want to discuss your
dog. So I'd like to talk to you a little bit about religion. Talk about
Noah's Ark for example, do you believe that there were dinosaurs on
Noah's Ark, at least baby dinosaurs --

PJ: No, I don't make any reference to the Bible or biblical
authority. I don't -- deal with that at all and I really don't have an
opinion about it.

BL: You don't have an opinion, okay. Well let's say, this
book, which is widely distributed in creationist circles, and used in
schools, home schools and religious schools at this point --

PJ: Has nothing to do with me.

BL: -- has a picture here -- well I'm going to ask you about, why you
don't do something that those of us on this side do -- here is a little
picture, man and the dinosaur, "Adam wasn't scared to watch
dinosaurs eat, because all of the creatures ate plants and not
meat." Now, do you think that's good biology, number one. And
number two -- [audience chuckles]

PJ: I -- I do not. And in fact, I have said on many occasions
and have urged persons of the conservative Christian community, to put
aside the whole Bible issues and let us ask the question: what is
actually known from scientific evidence as opposed to materialist
philosophy, about the claims of evolution.

BL:
-- you're a great lawyer, you are a great lawyer but you didn't answer
the question. I want you to know if -- to tell us if you think that this
is not so silly, and dangerous kind of ideas to plant in the hands of
high school students, that in fact the Flintstones are some kind of
documentaries. [audience laughs] That's pretty dangerous --

PJ: Yeah, yeah, that is -- yeah, the kind of thing, I haven't
seen this, but the kind of thing you're caricaturing certainly is silly,
just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins, and as damaging.

MK: Professor Miller?

PJ: And I mean that, you see, Dawk -- and the work of those
who say that material processes can explain the entire living world.

MK: Go ahead, Ms. Scott.

ES: No, that's all right.

KM: Okay, um -- I'm sure it will surprise no one, I have one
more chart. [audience laughs] And we have heard, over and over again,
that there are gaps in the fossil record, there are missing forms. And
it's been implied, the only reason they could be there is because
evolution is not the explanation. I want to show you a very famous gap.
It's a gap between Mesonychid mammals, land-dwelling carnivores that
lived oh 55-60 million years ago, and Archeocetes which are the oldest
whales. We know from skull and dentition patterns, that as it turns out,
these whales are very closely related to Mesonychids. And my colleague
directly across from me, Michael Behe, once wrote, "if random
evolution is true, there must be a large number of transitional forms
between Mesonychid and the ancient whale," and much in the way that
Dr. Berlinski has said, he said "Where are they?" Well they're
right here. One, two, three. [flipping over the pictures]

MR: He wants sixteen.

KM:
There turn out to be -- there turn out to be three transitional forms,
including a complete skeleton named Ambulocetus Natans which
turns out to be an extraordinary intermediate. And here's the point that
I want to ask you, it turns out that all of these fossils are found in
the area where the Indus river empties into the Indian ocean, they're
all in the right sequence, and furthermore they form a transitional
series. Now here's what I want to know, Phil. You keep saying, where are
the transitional forms? Paleontologists dig them up, what's the matter
with them?

[ Pictures upper-right and lower-right:
Ambulocetus natans (c. 50 Ma) -- which means "walking whale that
swims"Q: Where was Ambulocetus found? A:
Ambulocetus has been found in Pakistan, which would have been on the
shores of the Tethys sea separating the European archipelago from Africa
and Asia.Q: How big was Ambulocetus? A:
Ambulocetus was 3m long, which is bigger than many crocodiles.Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale?
A: Ambulocetus' teeth and skull
structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found
showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus,
Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth
of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very
similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from
the skull -- they "float" in a region of fat. To get sound to
the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a
special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted
through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of
the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic "S"
shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so
remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus
already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been
packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to
live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had
initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose
(e.g. sensing prey on land).Q:
How do we know that Ambulocetus lived in water as well as on land?
A: Its long body is shaped rather
like an otter, with a broad flattened tail and paddle-like hands and
feet. The back legs are very short and strong and would have been
powerful in the water, but clumsy on land. All these features suggest
that it was a good swimmer, and easily capable of moving on land as
well.Q: How do we know how Ambulocetus swam? A:
The long body, powerful hind legs, and flattened tail all suggest that
Ambulocetus swam a bit like a modern otter. Certainly (like all mammals)
its spine would have flexed up and down, not side to side like a fish or
a crocodile. Its tail and paddle-like back feet would have helped push
it through the water.Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus lived in fresh as well as salt
water? A: The fossils so far
have all been found in marine sediments, initially suggesting that these
were seashore animals. However, there is another clue from an
unlikely-sounding source -- their teeth. Paleontologists have made a
chemical analysis of Ambulocetus' teeth, and this tells a different
story. The teeth were formed early on in the animals' lives, and their
chemical composition shows that at that time the animals were in rivers
or estuaries, rather than the sea. There are two possible explanations
for this strange result. Maybe Ambulocetus went upstream to give birth
in fresh water, and then spent its adult life around the seashore.
Another alternative is that, rather like modern sea cows, they move
freely between fresh water and seawater. Only a few fossils have so far
been found, so perhaps we will find some in river deposits soon.Sources: see both P.D. Gingerich and J.G.M. Thewissen
on the evolution of whales ]

PJ: Here's what the matter is. The most important point to me,
is that the fossil record is most conclusively un-darwinian just where
it's most complete, in marine invertebrates. And that is why it is
shocking that one finds that where it's the most incomplete, and where
the imagination can have free play, that's where you get the examples.
We don't know that these form a transitional sequence at all --

KM: Phillip, you're changing, you're changing --

PJ: -- and you don't know how it could have happened, and by
what mechanism. And I -- and if you do I wish you'd publish the paper on
it because I'd love to see it torn to bits.

KM: Hang on for a second. I don't want anyone to miss the
point. Dr. Behe said, where's the transition? Philip Gingerich and
others dug up, not one, not two, but three transitionals --

PJ: Are they transitionals? We don't know that.

KM: And immediately -- you know I would think in a fair fight,
you'd say, you know, "darn it, we were wrong on that one. You guys
got the evidence, okay here's one for your side." But what's
happening is --

PJ: I can quote you from an article in Science that
says that they are not -- cannot be placed in an ancestor descendent
sequence.

MB: I asked the captain. He said okay. In a recent
fund-raising letter of National Center for Science Education, you state
that "when the ACLU wants to know what's this Intelligent Design
stuff, we're there to inform them that it is indeed a religiously-based
alternative to evolution, completely outside of science." Okay, now
let me give you a quote from an astronomer named Fred Hoyle who
discovered things called resonance energy levels for carbon, oxygen, and
helium, and found that they are arranged exactly as they must be to
support life. Hoyle wrote: "A common sense interpretation of the
facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well
as with chemistry and biology. The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question." How is his concluding intelligent design from the
facts of astronomy, different than concluding intelligent design from
the facts of say, the bacterial flagellum? And second, are you going to
sic the ACLU on Fred Hoyle?

ES: [chuckles] Fred Hoyle is a distinguished astronomer, as
you pointed out. When he speaks about biological phenomena, I would not
say that he speaks ex cathedra.

MB: He was speaking about astronomy --

ES: As a matter of fact, one of the statements that Fred Hoyle
made with Chandra Wickramasinghe, is that actually insects are smarter
than -- than we think they are, but they're just not letting us know
--

MB: He was speaking about astronomy in this quotation.

ES: -- I mean there were -- he has rather strange views about
evolution --

MB: But he's talking about astronomy here --

ES: -- and I would not consider him an authority.

MB: But he was concluding intelligent design from astronomy.

MK: Mr. Berlinski?

DB: Dr. Scott I find myself vexed by your cavalier attitude
toward the evidence especially with respect to the fossil record. And
that's the only evidence that your side has presented with great vigor.
Would you agree, as almost everyone else affirms, that the overwhelming
pattern of the fossil record is sharply discontinuous?

ES: Is shh -- what? I'm sorry.

DB: Sharply discontinuous.

ES: Sure it's discontinuous.

DB: Okay, so we agree on that. Could I ask you to give us your
best estimate of the number of changes required to take a dog-like
mammal to a sea-going whale?

ES: Can we first of all distinguish, which was confused I
think during the questioning of Phil. Evolution is descent with
modification, we all are quite convinced that this happened.

DB: I'm not.

ES: Darwinism -- well on my side of the table --

DB: That's for sure.

ES: Um --

DB: But I had a specific question.

ES: I'm finishing. Um, Darwinism -- evolution by natural
selection is one of the ways by which evolution can take place. The
argument that has been presented so frequently from your side of the
table is that if you -- all we have to do is disprove Darwinism, and we
disprove evolution. That's nonsense. Another point, I will try to answer
your question, I'm sorry --

DB: No, no, no. I'm trying to anchor the discussion in
something factual and concrete like a number.

ES: Why do you assume that the fossils are the only source of
data for evolution?

DB: I certainly don't, you're absolutely right. But I'm
talking about the whale, all right, large sea-going mammal. The thesis
is that there's a Darwinian progression, and the evidence is three or
four intermediates. I'm asking you to give us your best estimate of the
number of changes required to take a dog-like mammal to a sea --

ES: The number of genetic changes?

DB: -- morphological, physiological, just give us a number. Is
it three, is it ten --

ES: That's an absurd question.

DB: Why?

ES: None of us, none of us on the evolution side of this
argument has ever proposed that we can come up with "the number of
changes" -- that's a ridiculous question --

DB: Then how on earth can you commend the mechanism, if you
are unsure whether it's adequate to the result --

ES: Why are you so fixated on the mechanism of natural
selection?

DB: Because that's the heart of your doctrine. It's a theory,
it's a scientific theory.

ES: It is -- Would you agree with me that if you disprove
evolution -- excuse me, if you disprove natural selection, you therefore
disprove evolution?

DB: Sure.

ES: You're wrong.

DB: Why?

ES: Because evolution -- because natural selection is only a
way by which evolution can take place. The evidence would still be there
--

DB: There is no other attribute of the theory. Go back --

ES: -- from homology, from anatomical homologies, biochemical
homologies, and the fossil record. We're not dependent on the fossil
record.

DB: Professor Miller, would you agree with the statement, that
"nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution" -- it's very often quoted?

KM: The statement you're making is made by Theodosius
Dobzhansky --

DB: It's often attributed to Ernst Mayr also?

KM: Fair enough. And in a simple way, so I don't have
word-games played on me, no I would not agree with that. I think there
are things in biology that are perfectly sensible even if evolution is
not correct. However, the interrelationship -- our understanding of the
interrelationships between organisms, phylogeny and natural history,
does indeed only make sense in light of evolution.

DB: But in terms of your own very fine work in cell biology,
evolutionary theory plays no role whatsoever?

KM: Does evolutionary theory play a role in my work?

DB: -- proton transport.

KM: First, thank you for complimenting my work. The answer is
no, that's not correct. And the reason for that is, a few years ago an
investigator discovered a very interesting microorganisms of prokaryote called prochloron. Prochloron turned out to be the very first prokaryote
-- organism without a nucleus discovered -- that had both chlorophyll A
and B. This suggests very strongly that in an evolutionary sense,
prochloron is the evolutionary ancestor of the chloroplasts of higher
plants. This organism was sent to me because of the kind of structural
work I do, with the idea, "let's put it to the test." Because
what we did in my lab was to investigate the structure of photosynthetic
membranes, and lo and behold we found out that they were enormously
similar to higher plant chloroplasts. If they had been dissimilar, it
might have been an argument against evolution -- it turned out not to be
the case.

DB: I am certainly persuaded that you've been invigorated by
the shade of Charles Darwin. But the fact is that in your published
scientific papers, the term "evolution" occurs as frequently
as the term "Presbyterian" which is to say, not at all.

KM: Well, I have to tell you once again sir, you are wrong on
the fact.

DB: All right.

KM: None of my 75 plus published referred papers uses the term
Presbyterian, at least three of them use the term evolution.

DB: I stand corrected. [audience chuckles]

KM: The details -- the details --

DB: The odds are 75 to 3 against the usefulness of evolution
in your own scientific life. Let's leave that question aside, and let's
pass to another one since I don't see any way of resolving that
particular issue --

KM: I still -- I still reject it on the terms. You say
evolution is not useful -- the very reason why we study the
translocation of proteins in "lower organisms" such as yeast,
is because we believe we learn something about how our own cells work,
by studying other organisms. And the underpinning assumption for that is
in fact evolutionary biology.

DB: That's nonsense, and you know it. You study it because
it's an interesting and accessible question, that's the only --

KM: Well sir, the only thing I can tell you is if it really
was nonsense, the significant sections I write in the end of my grant
applications to the National Institutes of Health would no longer be
successful.

DB: Could well be. Let's turn to the question I so vainly
tried to pump an answer from Dr. Scott. How many -- how many
morphological changes do you think were required to affect the
transition those charts of yours were set to document?

KM: Okay, now you're -- I will give you a straight answer. And
the straight answer is that when you look at two species that are
separated by five million years of geological time, the number of
changes must be very very large. However --

DB: Give us an estimate.

KM: However, recent studies of speciation -- and I'm sorry to
pick this specific species -- but it's relevant to your question. Recent
studies of speciation in sunflowers have shown conclusively that a new
species can be established in terms of the speciation-like isolation
mechanism, with as few as ten genetic changes. That's your answer.

DB: Yes, I've read the same science papers you have but those
are very close. A dog-like mammal and a whale are very far --

KM: Ah, that's right, and the other end of the room is very
far away. And it should not surprise you that I get there with one step
at a time, and that's what we're talking about.

DB: Can I conclude that you refuse -- [audience applause] --
No matter the number I give you, you will neither assent nor disagree
with the number? If I say there are 100,000 morphological changes
required to take a dog-like mammal living on the land to a whale --

KM: Oh sorry, yes I will answer that. That's way too high. We
believe that organisms -- well, I shouldn't say we believe -- The good
genetic evidence is that there are about 100,000 genes in a human being.
I would best guess there's somewhat fewer in whales. What you're telling
me is to change from one similar organism, an organism that looks more
like a whale than any terrestrial animal that has ever lived, to a whale
that looks more like a terrestrial animal than any whale has ever lived,
would require every gene to change.

DB: No, I haven't even talked about genes.

KM: Sir, you asked me for a number, and I said, on that basis
--

DB: Morphological changes, changes to the organism --

KM: -- on that basis, 100,000 is too high.

DB: All right, 50,000?

KM: All right, my turn. Okay. Now I have a question for you.

DB: Yes.

KM: Um, you have said again and again and again, the
transitions are missing. And I hope no one in the audience missed the
fact that Dr. Scott pointed out that the transition from reptiles to
mammals, and looking around the room I see I'm surrounded by mammals,
this should be a point of interest to us --

MK: There are a few reptiles too.

KM: -- that that transition is exceedingly well documented.
Now once again you said, all the transitionals are missing, and I'm
confused. If this transition is very well documented, how can you on the
same face say, they're all missing?

DB: You know very well I didn't say that. I agree that the
late reptile-to-mammal sequence is well documented. No question about
it.

[ Picture lower-right: graphic
representation of the elephant (proboscidean) evolutionary lineage. The
fossil record of their ancestors goes back 50 million years. Source:
Miller, Finding Darwin's God, page 96 ]

KM:
Okay, let me go a little further. [audience laughs] Horses and
Elephants. The -- I picked these organisms because they are large,
because they're recently evolved, and because they are recent, we have
got lots of fossils, they are easy to pick out. The fossil record of
horses and elephants is extremely well documented. Now, you said at the
other end of the table you deny that descent with modification is
correct. So here's what I'd like to know --

DB: I didn't say that, I said I didn't believe it.

KM: Yes you said, I'm not convinced by it. I believe sir you
did.

DB: That's a big difference. I said I'm not convinced.

KM: So here's -- So here's my question. If not descent with
modification, please tell me your explanation for the temporal
appearance of these extremely closely related, in morphological terms,
organisms over time?

DB: Okay, two points. First of all, I neither affirmed nor
denied descent with modification. I said I have no opinion. I don't
happen to have an opinion on that issue, it's vexed in my opinion. Second
of all, you have chosen three, and the only three examples in the fossil
record where there's a plausible Darwinian sequence: the dog-like mammal
to whale sequence, the elephant sequence, and the horse sequence.

KM: Are you absolutely sure I can't pick up a fourth placard?
[audience chuckles]

DB: No, of course not. Each one is seriously questioned in the
literature. The elephant sequence --

KM: Could you point out, for the benefit of the audience, what
the question is? You said they're seriously questioned in the
literature.

DB: The question is, do we have a plausible sequence of
morphological changes that lead to the late fossil form from the early
fossil form by a route that makes morphological sense --

KM: And I would argue, yes we do, and I hope you've read Bruce
MacFadden's marvelous book on the --

DB: It's an excellent book, and I cite it in my Commentary
article.

KM: It's an excellent book and he has put enormous effort into
documenting those changes. So in legal terms sir, case closed, we got
it.

DB: But look at what we see in the horse sequence -- No, it's
not closed. This isn't scientific argument, this is mere rhetoric. The
horse sequence is proved vexed to everyone who looks at it. And the term
of choice is that it's an astonishingly bushy sequence. We don't know --

DB: Yeah, this is a term that's occurred very often in the
literature. When we look at the horse sequence, we have dozens and
dozens of species entering the record suddenly, and departing from the
record suddenly, just as abruptly as they entered. We do not really
know, whether the modern horse has ancestral patterns with the dozens of
other species that we find in the fossil record.

KM: So what that means is --

DB: If we look closely -- wait a second --

KM: Sure, go ahead.

DB: If we look closely at some of the amazing structures for
instance in the horses' hoof, we find it very difficult -- I'm sorry, we
find it very difficult to find specific antecedents. The more we study
such structures, the less plausible it is that they have an ancestral
pattern in the record --

KM: Okay, let me suggest -- let me suggest to the audience
that what Dr. Berlinski just said is in fact not correct. And I can
recommend articles and books in which you can find not only a series of
transitional forms, but also good evolutionary morphological
explanations for it.

DB: Yes, I agree with that.

KM: Now here's the question that I have for you.

DB: I agree with that. Let's get it on the record.

KM: Once again, to someone who advocates -- another question
-- to someone who advocates intelligent design.

DB: I don't.

KM: The fact -- To someone who advocates intelligent design,
does the sequence of these organisms in the fossil record simply mean,
that the intelligent designer was incompetent -- he kept making things
and they went extinct. Or that he was restless -- I'll try this, I'll
try that, I'll try the other thing. Or does it mean, that in fact these
organisms are related with descent -- by descent with modification?

DB: I have no idea. I mean it's not a question I'm prepared to answer one way or
another. I don't see why I'm obliged to answer that. I'm coming here
under the large tent of objurgation. I find scientific flaws with the
Darwinian theory, I don't have a replacement.

KM: Okay, the point that I think is extremely significant, is
in this case one side argued from authentic evidence, and the other side
said it's not enough to convince me. And I think that's a good way to
end the discussion.

BL: Well, I hope that our side at least has done what I
promised we would do from the beginning. And that is, we have asked for
alternative explanations for evolution and we have gotten none. What
have we gotten? Well we have Mr. Berlinski who has literally moments,
seconds ago said he doesn't really have an alternative. We asked Mr.
Behe, he said well a lot of people would say it was God, but we're not
quite sure -- I'm not sure at least whether he's prepared to say it's
God with any sense of authority. Mr. Johnson says, well I don't know
about the biblical answer as an alternative, we'll work that out after
we debunk evolution, which I think will be some time from now. We've
made it clear that evolution is not a philosophy, it's not a religious
idea, it's not an ideology, it's the best, indeed it's the only
scientific explanation for the fact that there is change in the natural
order.

We asked about intelligent design and got I think the best answer
from Mr. Behe. Mr. Behe has of course compared -- like it or not,
compared the extraordinary complexity of the human cell to the
mousetrap. He said if we look at that mousetrap it was created by a
human. In fact, Mr. Miller improved on it, as you saw earlier tonight.
Therefore, if that's complicated, then indeed the cell must also have
been designed by an intelligence. And as I thought about it tonight,
it's a little bit -- we were all talking about nature analogies -- it's
a little bit like looking at a mole build a molehill. You say, that's
very interesting. Then we walk out into the woods the next day and we
notice a big mountain off in the distance. And we say, "Good grief,
that's enormously large, a really big mole must have built that."
[audience chuckles]

The truth of the matter is it's not logical. We should be looking for
different forces that result in different things. Your mousetrap was
built by human hands, because its components are inanimate objects.
Cellular life is living, vibrant, breathing, changing matter. You're not
just comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing plastic apples to
organic oranges. And I think therefore, this analogy fails.

Let me close by saying, and speaking only for myself, because we do
have a difference of religious opinion, I draw upon a scriptural passage
which is dear to both Mr. Johnson and to myself. It comes from the first
chapter of John's Gospel. It reads: "In the beginning was the
word...." Indeed that word just might turn out literally to have
been a command: "Evolve!" Thank you very much. [audience
applause]

MK: Mr. Buckley?

Closing Statement by Affirmative

WB: Ah, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I compliment the
negative on the way in which their arguments have been framed. What is
it that we set out to say here? Namely, that the notion of creation has
not been invalidated by whatever loyalty is shown to the idea of
evolution. That is to say, we use the word "intelligent
design" in order to reach for something that is not biblical in
dimension but nevertheless suggests that the miracles with which we are
familiar are most probably miracles that didn't happen simply by chance.
I think we all have reason to celebrate in effect the repudiation of
materialist explanations that have been so studiously observed by our
eloquent adversaries.

So let me just close by reading one paragraph from an essay written
20 years after Darwin. In 1864, there was a diocesan conference at
Oxford. There chanced at this time to be in the
neighborhood a man who was neither priest nor scientist. A man given to
absurd freaks of intellectual charlatanry, yet showing at times also
such marvelous and sudden penetration into the heart of things as would
come only to genius. It was Disraeli. He began in his usual effective
manner slowly and rather pompously as if he had nothing to say beyond
the perfunctory platitudes, and then turning to the presiding officer,
he uttered one of his enigmatic and unforgettable epigrams. "What
is the question now placed before society? The question is this: Is man
an ape or an angel? I, my Lord, am on the side of the angels." The
audience not kindly disposed to the speaker, applauded the words as a
jest. They were carried the next day over the whole land by the
newspapers. They have often been repeated as an example of Disraeli's
brilliant but empty wit. I suspect that beneath their surface glitter
and hidden within their metaphor, these words contain a truth that shall
someday break the pieces of the new philosophy, which Huxley spent his
life so devotedly to establish. Thank you.

MK: Thank you Mr. Buckley. [audience applause] Well, I'm glad
that's settled. [chuckles] Um, I'd like to thank our debaters, and I'd
like to thank Seton Hall University. And I'm not going to tax anyone
with my voice any longer, I apologize for that. And I guess we'll know
in a few million years who's right and who's wrong about this.
[chuckles] Thank you very much. [audience applause]